mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (10/09/85)
Subject: Re: Terrorism Inc. >> Is there such a big difference between actions by a government that >> lead to civilian casualties, and actions by terrorists (who, being >> fewer in number and probably low on resources, certainly lower than >> a government) choose to pick on smaller numbers of people (eg. a car >> bomb versus overthrowing a government)? > It has to do with whether civilian causualties were the purpose of > the attack, or whether they were merely an unfortunate by-product. > Frank Silbermann Even in real, full-scale wars waged by legitimate governments for whatever reason, casualties inflicted on the civilian population is definitely *not* a "mere unfortunate by-product". The concept of total war, formally adopted and used in WWII as well as Vietnam, is that civilian populations directly support the armed forces, run the economy and the weapon-producing factories and provide new recruits and should therefore come under direct attack, i.e. a lot of them should die. Without a functioning civilian population an army wouldn't last very long. So perhaps you should dig deeper to find a definition for terrorism. Farzin Mokhtarian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Still, a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred."
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/10/85)
In article <1060> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: >Even in real, full-scale wars waged by legitimate governments for whatever >reason, casualties inflicted on the civilian population is definitely *not* >a "mere unfortunate by-product". The concept of total war, formally adopted >and used in WWII as well as Vietnam, is that civilian populations directly >support the armed forces, run the economy and the weapon-producing factories >and provide new recruits and should therefore come under direct attack, Can you say: "rationalization"? Somehow, baby Doe just doesn't seem very threatening to me. I'm not denying that it might be a tragic necessity to drop a bomb in his general vicinity. But spare me the too-facile "justifications". --Paul V Torek, the not-quite-thoroughly-morally-desensitized torek@umich
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (10/12/85)
Subject: Re: Terrorism, Inc. (A definition?) >>Even in real, full-scale wars waged by legitimate governments for whatever >>reason, casualties inflicted on the civilian population is definitely *not* >>a "mere unfortunate by-product". The concept of total war, formally adopted >>and used in WWII as well as Vietnam, is that civilian populations directly >>support the armed forces, run the economy and the weapon-producing factories >>and provide new recruits and should therefore come under direct attack, >Can you say: "rationalization"? No, I can't, and that's the point. It is intended to show that you can not expect "terrorists" to have higher moral codes than governments who have terrorized them. I do not approve of murder of innocent civilians by an individual or a group of people but I do not disapprove of it any more than I disapprove of the same act by a government (in this case take these to mean Israel and the Palestinians). This is what morality tells me. If you now tell me that being bound by morality is not always politically sound, then you have in fact said that you don't consider yourself bound by morality when it is not to your advantage. Then how can you expect the "terrorists" to feel morally bound? They are more crude but they have hardly changed the rules of the game. Politics can't afford morality. Isn't this what we have been told over and over? Farzin Mokhtarian ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "From which may be drawn a general rule, which never or very rarely fails, that whoever is the cause of another becoming powerful, is ruined himself; for that power is produced by him either through craft or force; and both of these are suspected by the one who has been raised to power."
tedrick@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/13/85)
>>Even in real, full-scale wars waged by legitimate governments for whatever >>reason, casualties inflicted on the civilian population is definitely *not* >>a "mere unfortunate by-product". The concept of total war, formally adopted >>and used in WWII as well as Vietnam, is that civilian populations directly >>support the armed forces, run the economy and the weapon-producing factories >>and provide new recruits and should therefore come under direct attack, >Can you say: "rationalization"? >Somehow, baby Doe just doesn't seem very threatening to me. I'm not >denying that it might be a tragic necessity to drop a bomb in his general >vicinity. But spare me the too-facile "justifications". My current imperfect understanding of war says that the aim of war is to destroy the will of the enemy to resist. This includes destroying enemy morale. Therefore if killing civilians (this is very painful for me to say) weakens enemy morale, it is entirely consistent with the aim of war. I hope we can find a way to solve world problems without war ... -Tom tedrick@berkeley
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/14/85)
In article <1065> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: >...I do not approve of murder of innocent civilians by an >individual or a group of people but I do not disapprove of it any more >than I disapprove of the same act by a government... Same here. But I dispprove of it more when innocent civilians are targeted than when they are killed due to targeting combatants (though if the attackers have no regard for the number of incidental civilian deaths, then the difference becomes quite small). In the "total war" concept, civilians are the targets; but often governments try to avoid killing civilians, and will only risk killing innocents incidentally when doing so will avoid the deaths of even more innocents (usually its own people). --Paul V Torek torek@umich
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (10/18/85)
Subject: Re: Terrorism, Inc. (Who is moral?) >> ...I do not approve of murder of innocent civilians by an >> individual or a group of people but I do not disapprove of it any more >> than I disapprove of the same act by a government... > Same here. But I dispprove of it more when innocent civilians are targeted > than when they are killed due to targeting combatants (though if the > attackers have no regard for the number of incidental civilian deaths, then > the difference becomes quite small). In the "total war" concept, civilians > are the targets; but often governments try to avoid killing civilians, and > will only risk killing innocents incidentally when doing so will avoid the > deaths of even more innocents (usually its own people). > --Paul V Torek torek@umich First, the total war concept. If civilians become targets then the government which is targetting them is no longer trying to avoid killing them. To the contrary, it *is* trying to kill them. Furthermore, "combatants" can be interpreted to include civilians too since they support their army against the opposing army. Second, your explanation does not make it easier to see the distinction between terrorists and more conventional armies. Explanation: I believe you are telling me that (at times of war) governments don't really want to hurt civilians but sometimes find it necessary to do that in order to achieve a military or political goal that they happen to believe in (and hopefully the rest of the population believes in). Fine. If I were a member of a terrorist group, I could find very close parallels between this argument and my motives, such as the following: "If my group takes hostages, the intention is not to hurt them but to achieve a political goal we happen to believe in. If some hostages are killed, they are unfortunate victims of our war. They were not killed because we take pleasure in killing. You can not convince me not to do it because your government does it when it is found to be necessary. And that's how I saw it; necessary. Unpleasant but necessary." This does NOT imply that I approve of "terrorists". Indeed, I disapprove of it in all of its forms. Farzin Mokhtarian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "... For like a mirror it is both mute and expressive."